On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 09:30, Fred Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would agree. I am not opposed to the topic being discussed. But take a
> look at this email thread. How much discussion is about NATs, their proposed
> algorithms, and their proposed uses, and how much is about "we don't want no
> stinkin' NATs"?
>
I still think that it is more important to determine if we want any NAT in
IPv6 prior to trying to offer solutions. The solutions will be easy to
define, even if they are only "to do the least amount of harm" once we come
to consensus on the basic question.
The original threads that lead to this list being created all came down to
the basic Boolean question:
Do we in the IETF want to allow NAT66 at all in IPv6 even though IPv6 was
originally designed not to allow it?
If yes, then lets work on a solution that will do the least amount of harm.
If no, then let's put out an RFC that bluntly states that NAT66 is not
supported, and use will lead to unpredictable results. If we want we can
update RFC4864 with a more detailed best practices for getting the percieved
benifits that NAT44 offered.
But before we go and build one ("because we can") we need a consensus
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
